DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 02/01/2024, 06/10/2025, 08/25/2025, 07/16/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamo (WO 2020184502 A1) in view of Arima (JP2004207253 A).
Regarding claim 1, Kamo discloses an electrode comprising:
A current collector (Figure 1-4; current collector 11); and
An active material layer formed on at least one side of the current collector (Figures 1-4; active material layer 13), the active material layer having an intaglio shape therein (Figure 1), and the intaglio shape has a breadth in a range of 100-2000 micrometers ([23] width of the groove is 0.2 mm to 6.5 mm).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kamo further discloses wherein the depth of the groove is 0.05-4.5 micrometers, and wherein the length of the groove can be 20-95% of the length of the collector/electrode layer. Kamo is silent with respect to the dimensions of the electrode layer with regard to the intaglio shape satisfies equation 1 below:
≤100 x Vp/V ≤ 0.6
Wherein, Vp is a volume of the intaglio shape, and V is a volume of the active material layer.
Arima discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery having a similar structure to that of the groove portion and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Arima discloses wherein the electrode has a volume of 1350 mm3 ([0024] thickness 0.09 mm, width of 150 mm and length of 100 mm) wherein a single groove region has a volume of 1.5 mm3 ([0024] depth 0.05 mm, width of 0.3 mm and length of 100 mm). Arima discloses wherein the groove is formed on the surface of the electrode to allow for diffusion of the injected electrolyte into the power generation element, gas escape, removal of the solvent and thus improves the speed of the secondary battery ([0008]). Examiner notes that the single groove portion compared to the electrode would fall within the range that is taught and claimed in Equation 1 as Vp/V *100 = 0.11 and thus satisfies the equation 0.1≤0.11 ≤ 0.6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the size of the groove region in comparison to the electrode of Kamo to satisfy the equation 1 as taught by Arima as the size of the groove can be adjusted to satisfy the volume ratio of equation 1 as a simple change in size of the groove that can be used to aid in the absorption of electrolyte into the electrode. Kamo discloses wherein the invention is related to increasing the impregnation speed of the electrolyte and thus adjusting the size of the groove regions would aid in increasing the impregnation speed of the electrolyte. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 1 are rendered obvious in view of the combination absent evidence of critically or unexpected results. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 2, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Kamo further discloses wherein the breadth of the intaglio shape is in the range of 100-800 micrometers (Figures 1-4; [23] average width of the grooves is 0.2-6.5 mm), and a ratio of a depth to the breadth of the intaglio shape is in a range of 0.005 to 0.15 ([24] depth of the groove can be 0.05-4.5 micrometers and thus the ratio can be between 0.000025-0.0225). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Modified Kamo further discloses wherein the breadth of the intaglio shape is more than 800 micrometers (Figures 1-4; [23] average width of the grooves is 0.2-6.5 mm), and a ratio of a depth to the breadth of the intaglio shape is in a range of 0.005 to 0.15 ([24] depth of the groove can be 0.05-4.5 micrometers and thus the ratio can be between 0.0000625-0.005625). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 4, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Kamo further discloses wherein a single intaglio shape or a plurality of intaglio shapes are formed (Figures 1-4).
Regarding claim 5, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Kamo further discloses wherein the active material layer comprises an electrode active material and a binder ([27]). Kamo further discloses wherein the binder can be PVdF as well as other binder materials ([28]). Examiner notes that PVdF has a solubility parameter of approximately 23.2 MPa1/2 and would be within the claimed range of 10-30 MPa1/2 and thus would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 5. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 6, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 5. Kamo further discloses wherein a ratio of the electrode active material in the active material layer is 80-99 wt%, and the binder is included in the active material layer in an amount of 0.1 to 10 parts by weight relative to 100 parts by weight of the electrode active material ([27-29] active material layer contains an active material and a binder and wherein the content of the binder can be between 1-45 % by mass and thus the amount of active material can be 55-99% by mass within the active material layer). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 7, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 5. Kamo discloses wherein the active material is for a positive electrode, and wherein the negative electrode contains graphite ([52]). Thus Kamo is silent with respect to wherein the negative electrode comprises the intaglio shape and thus wherein the intaglio shape is included in the negative electrode active material comprising graphite. It would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to modify the negative electrode active material to have the groove portions having the intaglio shape as seen in the positive electrode as a simple modification of a known structure of electrodes. Kamo discloses wherein the positive electrode can have the intaglio shape and thus the same structure can be applied to the negative electrode with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 8, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 1. Kamo discloses wherein a ratio (D/T) of a depth of the intaglio shape to a thickness of the active material layer is in a range of 0.1-0.6 (Figure 1; the average depth of Groove shows to be roughly less than half of the thickness of the active material and thus would appear to be between ratio of 0.1-0.6 as claimed).
PNG
media_image1.png
190
488
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Kamo teaches an electrode comprising a current collector (Figure 1-4; current collector 11); and
An active material layer formed on at least one side of the current collector, the active material layer having an intaglio shape therein (Figures 1-4; active material layer 13).
Kamo further teaches wherein the electrode is capability of increasing the impregnation rate of an electrolyte into an electrode while maintaining good battery performance such as a capacity retention rate ([6, 11-13, 16]). Kamo is explicitly silent with respect to the specific impregnation rate as claimed.
Arima discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery having a similar structure to that of the groove portion and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Arima discloses wherein the groove is formed on the surface of the electrode to allow for diffusion of the injected electrolyte into the power generation element, gas escape, removal of the solvent and thus improves the speed of the secondary battery ([0008]). Arima further discloses wherein the groove is manufactured to increase impregnation with the electrolyte ([0007,0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of the disclosures of Kamo and Arima to adjust and optimize the impregnation rate of the electrolyte into the intaglio shape of the electrode as the impregnation rate is increased due to the intaglio shape of the electrode and thus improving the manufacture and capacity of the battery as taught by both Kamo and Arima. Thus the combination and general disclosures of Kamo and Arima would render obvious a high impregnation rate as the intaglio structure is known to improve the impregnation rate and while the combination does not disclose the specific impregnation rate as claimed a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to adjust the impregnation rate in view of Kamo and Arima absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. Examiner notes that the specific method of performing the impregnation such as “dropping 1 microliter of propylene carbonate on the intaglio shape at 25C over a given time” is not given patentable weight as this is deemed to be a method for performing and measuring the impregnation rate.
Regarding claim 10, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Modified Kamo is silent with respect to the area of an impregnated region being less than 60π mm2, however, the specific area and size of the intaglio can be adjusted. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the size of the intaglio region that is impregnated as a simple change in size absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 11, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Modified Kamo is silent with respect to the time of an impregnated region being less than 25 seconds, however, the specific time of impregnation can be adjusted. Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the length of the time of impregnation as a simple change in size absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results. The resulting modification would render obvious the time in which impregnation occurs as the time can be adjusted to last less than 25 seconds. Examiner notes that the time is related to a method of performing the impregnation and a product claim is not dependent upon the method and thus it is deemed to be a product by process limitation as the time required to perform the impregnation is not given patentable weight for a product claim. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04). The product-by-limitations of claim 11 are not given patentable weight since the courts have held that patentability is based on a product itself, even if the prior art product is made by a different process (In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, 1985). Moreover, a product-by-process limitation is held to be obvious if the product is similar to a prior art product (In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, and In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324). Claim 11 as written does not distinguish the product of the instant application from the product of the prior art.
Regarding claim 12, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 9. Modified Kamo is silent with respect to the impregnated region of the propylene carbonate having an elliptical shape and a ratio of a major axis to a minor axis being 1-8, however, a skilled artisan can adjust the shape of the intaglio that is to be impregnated to have an elliptical shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the shape of the intaglio/groove area to have an elliptical shape wherein a ratio of a major axis to a minor axis is between 1-8 as a simple change in shape. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 13, Kamo discloses a method for manufacturing an electrode comprising:
A step of forming an intaglio shape on an active material layer formed on at least once side of a current collector (Figure 1-4; current collector 11; [7,13] having an active material layer 13 that is formed having an intaglio shape);
Wherein the intaglio shape has a breadth in a range of 100-2000 micrometers ([23] width of the groove is 0.2 mm to 6.5 mm).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Kamo further discloses wherein the depth of the groove is 0.05-4.5 micrometers, and wherein the length of the groove can be 20-95% of the length of the collector/electrode layer. Kamo is silent with respect to the dimensions of the electrode layer with regard to the intaglio shape satisfies equation 1 below:
≤100 x Vp/V ≤ 0.6
Wherein, Vp is a volume of the intaglio shape, and V is a volume of the active material layer.
Arima discloses a non-aqueous electrolyte rechargeable battery having a similar structure to that of the groove portion and is analogous with the instant invention as being within the same field of endeavor of battery cells. Arima discloses wherein the electrode has a volume of 1350 mm3 ([0024] thickness 0.09 mm, width of 150 mm and length of 100 mm) wherein a single groove region has a volume of 1.5 mm3 ([0024] depth 0.05 mm, width of 0.3 mm and length of 100 mm). Arima discloses wherein the groove is formed on the surface of the electrode to allow for diffusion of the injected electrolyte into the power generation element, gas escape, removal of the solvent and thus improves the speed of the secondary battery ([0008]). Examiner notes that the single groove portion compared to the electrode would fall within the range that is taught and claimed in Equation 1 as Vp/V *100 = 0.11 and thus satisfies the equation 0.1≤0.11 ≤ 0.6.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to adjust the size of the groove region in comparison to the electrode of Kamo to satisfy the equation 1 as taught by Arima as the size of the groove can be adjusted to satisfy the volume ratio of equation 1 as a simple change in size of the groove that can be used to aid in the absorption of electrolyte into the electrode. Kamo discloses wherein the invention is related to increasing the impregnation speed of the electrolyte and thus adjusting the size of the groove regions would aid in increasing the impregnation speed of the electrolyte. Thus all the claim limitations of claim 13 are rendered obvious in view of the combination absent evidence of critically or unexpected results. The size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Regarding claim 14, modified Kamo discloses all the claim limitations of claim 13. Arima further discloses wherein the groove formed on the surface of the active material can be formed by any machining methods such as die machining, press working, or laser working. Kamo is silent with laser working being used.
Therefore, it would have been obvious in view of a skilled artisan to incorporate the laser working of Arima into the battery method of Kamo such that the grooves of Kamo can formed through laser working that would read on the laser irradiation as claimed as laser working is a known method of forming grooves within electrodes. The resulting modification would render obvious all the claim limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claims 15-16, Kamo further discloses a secondary battery comprising an electrode assembly comprising a positive electrode, a negative electrode, and a separator disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode wherein the positive electrode or the negative electrode is the electrode of claim 1 ([1-4] secondary battery comprising a separator that is provided between the negative electrode and the positive electrode).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ozaki et al. (US 2013/0236782 A1)- discloses an electrode wherein the active material layer 12 forms projections 31 and recesses 33 that is related to the intaglio structure of the claimed invention.
Yu et al. (US 2018/0337391 A1)- discloses a pressing process of creating a patterned surface on a battery electrode and is analogous with the instant invention as being related to the intaglio structure of the claimed invention.
Seo (KR 20160116969 A-as cited in the IDS)-discloses an electrode for secondary battery and method having an engraving pattern with narrow and wide patterns and is analogous with the intaglio structure as claimed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam J Francis whose telephone number is (571)272-1021. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 7 am-4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Martin can be reached at (571)270-7871. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM J FRANCIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1728
Prosecution Insights